Category: Practical Advice

CFO Folklore: My “Favorite” Questions


Ah, the Holidays!  They put you in the mood for remembrance.  Families get together and stories of past times and lives start pouring out.  My grandfather was a brilliant man of the WWII generation.  He died when I was a baby.  Hence, I cannot remember this myself, but I've been told quite few times about his main pet peeve: he couldn't stand what he called "idiotic" questions.   Apparently, I've inherited this familial trait.

His being the times way before the political correctness permanently  stifled us, he had the luxury to call things as he saw them.  Nowadays, I use more neutral words.  I call them nonsensical questions.  I even trained myself to ignore stand alone occurrences.  However, there are two questions that pervade my professional life.  As all pet peeves do, they cause undue frustration.

The first question is consistently asked by my subordinates and peers.  You see, unless I attend to a confidential business matter, I always keep my office door opened.  I believe it is good for employees' morale to see a CFO working as hard as I do. 

So, these people see me all day long attending to my scheduled tasks, addressing issues, solving problems.  I am consumed by work.  Yet, EVERY TIME one of them needs me and comes to my door, they ask me THE SAME question, "Are you busy right now?"  In response I want to scream, "Of course, I am busy.  Can't you see?" 

It doesn't mean that I am not available to discuss their problem if it is of higher priority, or scheduling them for a later time slot if it can wait.  But why do they have to ask that question?  At staff meetings, I teach them to approach this situation in a more sensible manner: come, don't ask the damn question, instead state your issue and let me decide if it requires immediate attention.  Some learn, but the rest just cannot help themselves.

The second question is similar but essentially different in its nature.  It's usually asked by the boss.  And, as we already discussed, there is nothing you can do, but to bite your tongue.  He has something on his mind, so he comes to your office.  Here it comes, "What are you doing right now?" 

The involuntary first reaction is, "What do you think?  I am doing nothing.  Just sitting here enjoying myself."  But he does not imply you are not working.  This is how their minds work: whatever is on his mind is the most important thing to him right now and in his opinion should be to you as well (even though you don't even know yet what it is).  This attitude renders your current preoccupation irrelevant.  Now, it is up to you to navigate the situation properly into the safe harbor.  Over the years, I've developed an arsenal of methods.  I am sure you have too, but if you need my help, please, don't hesitate to email.

New CFO, Same Staff: Inheritance Problems


Ok, let's leave our bosses alone for the time being.  Let's talk about us as bosses.  In our multi-functional lives as CFOs and Controllers we frequently end up with more direct reports than CEOs/owners.  There are accounting managers, finance directors, budget and analysis groups leaders, PR, AP, AR, IT, and so on.

Let's say you are making a career move and just accepted a position with XYZ, Inc., replacing a departing CFO.  In a dreamy corporate fairy tale you should be able to do what our newly elected presidents do – form your own cabinet and move in with your faithful acolytes. In real life… you inherit somebody else's staff.  Moreover, you have to quickly immerse and keep the business going.

The subsequent events can play themselves out in three possible scenarios:

1.  Without giving the existing operations a real dissection under a microscope, you simply learn how everything functioned under your predecessor, decide not to change anything even if you find the old ways inadequate or wrong, and continue in the same fashion.  The effect: good for the staff – no changes, no new things to learn, no old habits to break; bad for the company, your employers and ultimately yourself – inheriting diseases without attempting to treat them will assure your failure.

2.  If you are a responsible and knowledgeable person with an impressive background and enthusiasm for your new job, you will study all aspects of functions under your control, diligently, but without prejudice; find errors, shortcomings and blind spots; apply your expertise, and develop improvements and innovations plan.  And then you will face incredible resistance from your inherited staff.  It is very natural: humans are resentful of changes.  They will give you very hard time, no help and mountains of frustrations.  Just because you are great at finance and accounting, it does not mean that you are good at managing and educating people.  If you don't have patience and sufficient skills to overcome the resistance in a positive way, you will end up firing a third of the stuff and another third will leave on their own.  The rest will stay, but you will never gain their trust and support.  The worst part – by replacing former employees with new ones, you will loose the continuity of the departmental knowledge.  

3.  Under the best case scenario, your professional and managerial skills are equal.  While you sifting through processes, functions, policies and procedures, you must study the people.  What motivates them? Do they know their jobs well? Are their duties properly matched with their abilities?  Psycho-profiling is one of the most important managerial skills.  Try to discern the personality traits of your employees.  The personnel strategy should be part of your improvement plan.  Find people who are interested in positive progress, explain to them how the new developments will benefit them, show them the big picture (for more on this subject see my post Big Picture and Staff Training) and make them your agents of change.  Then you can claim the successful transition.    

Job Search: Prestige and Compensation


It happens very rarely, but this time I am in absolute agreement with yet another installment from "You Are Better Than Your Job Search" – previously referenced book from The Ladders' CEO Marc Cenedella: Title vs. Salary.  And I strongly advise everyone to click on the link and read the excerpt very carefully.

It is true that a good title looks pretty on our resumes, but it cannot be at the center of your decision to accept a job offer.  If the title comes as a part of a good deal completed with new professional challenges and attractive compensation package, then great, you are doing the right thing by taking the job.  However, if its just a title and everything about the job makes you unhappy, depressed and economically strapped, there is no point in making such sacrifices. 

And you cannot fool anybody with that line on your resume either.  All experienced recruiters and the majority of hiring execs know that if you held the Controller position in a $10 million a year, known to nobody company, it means you had no staff, can claim no sophisticated accomplishments, nobody asked your strategic advice and your salary was around $80K.  At best, you were a glorified full-charge bookkeeper.

As the matter of fact, I frequently say that I don't care about my title.  As far as I am concerned, they can call me "hey you," or a "firefighter," or a "cleaning lady" on the organizational chart as long as I can continue impact the business in the most profound way, implement ideas of highest sophistication,  keep all functions in full control and receive compensation that reflects my influence on the company.

Another very valuable point concerning inflated titles brought up in the article/excerpt is the artificial promotion.  In the companies with flat management structure, people keep carrying out the same responsibilities year after year with minimal salary increases and title changes that reflect not a professional growth but rather simple seniority.  After 10 or 15 years with the same company a person who started as a catch-all office girl becomes the Controller.  And it is fine if she actually grew into the Controller's responsibilities together with the company's development (this is what I call an "in-the-chair" career ladder), but most of the time that is not the case.  Hence, taking the Controller's job replacing that person would not be a great professional achievement.  

Of course, when we are stuck in the rut of a long job search, we become desperate and dispirited.  Then even an inflated title may seem like a sweetener of whatever position we are ready to grab to "put the food on the table."  However, desperation is a poor adviser.  Please, think long and hard before you take that step.




Big Picture and Staff Training


Closely-held entrepreneurial companies always have some flair of secrecy.  The Owners' lives are intertwined with the businesses and because of that they apply personal privacy rights to everything, including the company's commercial and organizational matters.  This frequently leads to "need-to-know-only" modus operandi when dealing with employees. 

CFOs, Controllers, Directors of Finance are expected to act in the same secretive manner.  And I am not talking about non-disclosure of commercial secrets, compensation details, or owners withholdings – these matters are confidential by definition.  I am talking about organizational structure, commercial partnerships, new financial relationships, transactional details, new venture plans, etc.

The owners who insist on such covertness make a mistake of disregarding the natural human instinct of their employees to fill in the blanks.  In the absence of actual information they will cook up their own assumptions about concealed matters. 

You wouldn't believe what kind of wild baseless fantasies I sometimes uncover: non-existing silent partners, astronomical sales volumes, mythical lines of side business.  In one of my previous employments people even assumed that I was a member of the owner's family on account of my loyalty and strict work ethics. 

That's just laughable, but there are far more serious impacts of secretiveness: people don't understand the mission of the organization, the commercial scope, the structure, the value chain.  Most importantly, they cannot grasp their own place and relevance in the system.       

The unfortunate effect of this disconnect is mechanistic disinterested performance instead of meaningful work.  On one hand, the bosses insist that their employees are kept in the dark, and on the other hand, they would like to see high efficiency and productivity – impossible to coexist.

I have managed to convince most of bosses that while keeping the actual confidential information secret, it is absolutely crucial to provide my subordinates with the Big Picture and their place in it.  I consider this to be the most important step in staff training and development.  You will be wasting your time trying to teach your employees how to apply their expertise and education to the tasks you need them to perform if they don't know why these tasks are important for the company's, and consequently, their own prosperity.

When explaining their role and place in the Big Picture, I frequently tell the employees that the company doesn't employ them to pay salaries.  It is actually other way around: if the company could operate without the employees jobs done, we would gladly do so and save the money we pay as compensation . But it is crucial for the company that the jobs are done well and that is why the employees are retained and paid.  You will be surprised: it is not as clear to most people as you could expect.

Job Search: Is Industry Experience Really Relevant?


All of us have encountered this many times over – you read a job posting for a CFO or Controller position (this is particularly true about recruitment agencies' ads) and the responsibilities list is a perfect match to your experience: you've done budgeting, forecasting, treasury management, BOD reporting; you've designed KPI's and dashboards; you've managed and trained staff, etc…  Then, you get to the end and among mandatory qualifications you see: real estate experience (or broker/dealer, or manufacturing, or consumer products… whatever) "is a must."

Why?  Do hiring execs and managers think that there are some cult secrets separating one industry's accounting and finance from another?  That you can only absorb them through exclusive involvement with that industry's firms? That no one with  deep knowledge of fundamental principles of finance, GAAP, taxation etc. can adapt them to a new industry and quickly digest the technical specifics? 

And wouldn't they be more interested in hiring someone sophisticated enough to be willing and capable of diversifying their experience?  Do they really think that someone who knows Revenue Recognition Cycle in Technology will not be able to dissect standards for the same task in Financial Services? 

I can go on forever with these questions, but I guess you get my point: I don't think that industry experience is relevant for REAL CFO's and Controllers – those who possess broad and deep knowledge of accounting and finance, not just few repetitious tricks they have learned without understanding the underlying principles behind them.

Let me give you a simple analogy.  Multi-lingual children exposed to different languages through their residence, parental ethnicity, foreign nannies, etc. are known to add more and more languages to their arsenal with a greater success than their peers.  The reason is that their anatomical speech instruments become very flexible and can adapt to any new challenges.

The same is true about the professional expertise of those financial execs who were exposed throughout their career to a variety of industrial and organizational specifics.  They usually have deeper understanding of business, sharper commercial acumen and ability to adapt them to any new circumstances.

In yet another excerpt from Marc Cenedella's TheLadders book (Sell Yourself Short), he condecsends that recruiters are now more open to industry crossovers, but that you will have to accept lower salaries and positions. 

First of all, the supposed "openness" is a lie: the job listings are full of specific industry requirements.  Secondly, don't let statements like that lower your self-esteem: if you are capable to cross over without difficulties, it's your asset, not a shortcoming.

Let's not forget that the system of double-bookkeeping (still the foundation of all accounting the last time I checked) was created by the XIV century Venetian sea merchants and first outlined in proper structural manner by Benedetto Cotrugli around 1450 as a chapter in his "Of Trading and the Perfect Trader."  Subsequently, Lucas Bartolomes Pacioli devoted 36 chapters to the subject in his monumental tretese on mathematics.  

These were Renaissance men who also wrote on architecture, medicine, law, art, religion and broad business issues.  It is unfortunate that the employers of today have devolved to preferring the narrow specialization instead.